- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010515652019 NC: 2026:KHC:52796 WP No. 1097 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO.1097 OF 2020 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.B.B.KRISHNAPPA S/O BABU POOJARI AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/O THALTHARE SHETTALLI VILLAGE SHANTHALLI HOBLI SOMWARPETE TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571236 …PETITIONER (BY SRI.RAMESH KUMAR R V AND LAW MENS CO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. 1(A) SRI.BABU POOJARI S/O SRI.DHOOMA POOJARI AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS DEAD BY HIS LRS. SMT.RATHNA D/O LATE BABU POOJARI W/O MANJUNATH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS R/O DODDANAHALLI VILLAGE UMMATHURU, NIDIGERE POST YESLURU HOBLI SAKLESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573134 Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010515652019 NC: 2026:KHC:52796 WP No. 1097 of 2020 1(B) SMT.PUSHPA D/O LATE BABU POOJARI AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O NARAYAN POOJARI R/O BANAGERI VILLAGE MAGERI POST, HETTUR HOBLI SAKALESHPURA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573123 2. SRI.B.B.GANGADHAR S/O BABU POOJARI AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS R/O KIBBETTA VILLAGE SOMWARAPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571236 3. SRI.B.B.DEVAPPA S/O BABU POOJARI AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS 4. SMT.YASHODHA D/O SRI.BABU POOJARI W/O SRI.B.V.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEAR RESPONDENT NOS.1, 3 AND 4 ARE R/AT TALTHARE SHETTALLI VILLAGE HANAGAL POST SOMWARAPET TALUK KODAGU DISTRICT-571236 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.G.BALAKRISHNA SHASTRY, ADVOCATE FOR R.3, R.4 AND ALSO FOR R.1(A & B); R2- SERVED) Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010515652019 NC: 2026:KHC:52796 WP No. 1097 of 2020 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AT ANNEXURE-F PASSED ON I.A.NO.IX/2019 IN O.S.NO.81/2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE PRL. CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC AT SOMWARPET AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING –B GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned petition is filed by the plaintiff, calling in question the order passed on I.A.No.IX, whereby the application filed by the plaintiff seeking permission to furnish an additional list of witnesses, namely, the Sub- Registrar, Somwarpet, Kodagu District, and to lead further evidence, has been rejected by the learned Trial Judge. 2. The petitioner-plaintiff has instituted the suit seeking a declaration of title founded on a Will and consequential relief of possession. During the course of the Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010515652019 NC: 2026:KHC:52796 WP No. 1097 of 2020 proceedings, the petitioner filed I.A.No.IX seeking permission to revise the witness list and to examine the Sub-Registrar, Somwarpet. This Court has perused the affidavit filed in support of the said application. A bare perusal of the affidavit does not disclose any cogent or satisfactory reason as to why the petitioner seeks to examine the Sub-Registrar or as to how such examination is necessary for adjudication of the issues involved in the suit. In the absence of any such justification, the learned Trial Judge was justified in rejecting the application. 3. It is also relevant to note that, in a suit where the plaintiff seeks declaration of title on the basis of a Will, the burden lies upon the propounder of the Will to establish its due execution and attestation in accordance with the mandate contained in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The statutory requirements for proving a Will Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010515652019 NC: 2026:KHC:52796 WP No. 1097 of 2020 cannot be dispensed with merely by examining the Sub- Registrar before whom the Will came to be registered. 4. The mere fact that the Will is a registered document does not dispense with the requirement of proving the Will in accordance with law. At the same time, neither Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act nor Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act mandates the examination of the Sub-Registrar for proving a Will, merely on the ground that the Will is registered. Therefore, in the absence of any specific or cogent reason warranting the examination of the Sub-Registrar, the learned Trial Judge was justified in declining the prayer made in I.A.No.IX. No ground is made out for interference with the impugned order in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2014, the learned Trial Judge is directed to expedite the Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010515652019 NC: 2026:KHC:52796 WP No. 1097 of 2020 hearing of the suit and make every endeavour to dispose of the same, in accordance with law, within an outer limit of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NBM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16 Digitally Signed By: SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM Verified